Prefatory Note: This essay came out of
a talk given in Toronto some years ago. Some of the people attending were
interested in the ideas and asked if I could give them some kind of
written summary of the arguments presented. The following is the result.

The hosts of the talk had chosen a topic I found
somewhat odd; "The Soul in Buddhism" and I used it to examine some issues
related to the nature of mind, karma, rebirth and Buddhist Middle Path
philosophy.

This essay has since been published in the "Right View
Quarterly"

Footnotes to the text are hyper-linked.

Punnadhammo Bhikkhu

Is There a Soul in Buddhism?

To give the short answer first: "No."

As you might expect, the long answer is much more nuanced. The short
answer depends on the commonly understood idea of "soul" as an unchanging
personal principle that continues in time infinitely. This is the concept
of "soul" usually implicit when one begins with the assumptions of a
theistic religion. On the other hand, if by soul we mean simply that human
beings have a spiritual aspect that is not ultimately bound up with
physical processes, then Buddhism would be much more sympathetic to the
idea. Buddhism may deny the existence of a "soul" but it is not for that
reason "soul-less" in the same way as is materialist philosophy.

Buddhism is often called the "Middle Path." This has
been explained in different ways in different contexts. The earliest use
of the phrase is found in the Buddha's very first
sermon, in which he laid out the "middle way" between the extremes
of asceticism and hedonism. On the metaphysical level, the Buddhist
doctrine (and more specifically the dependent origination) has been called
the "middle way" between the extreme views of eternalism and
annihilationism (sassatavada and ucchedavada).

The first sutta of the Digha
Nikaya lays out sixty-two false views, or philosophical errors.
These make a complex matrix of nuanced positions regarding metaphysical
questions but we can simplify them all into two broad categories, (and one
additional minor category.) The first major category of error is
eternalism, or the belief that there are some "things" (such as a soul)
that continue essentially unchanged forever. This was represented in the
Buddha's time by all those Indian schools which postulated an eternal
"atman", the Self or Soul or "jiva", life-principle.
In later times, this philosophy was adopted in some form or another by all
the theistic religions like Christianity, Islam or most forms of Hinduism.

The belief in an atman or soul in this sense usually
goes hand-in-hand with the belief in a Creator-God, who is the first, most
perfect and most powerful of the "souls". Sometimes the soul is seen as a
part or a spark of the One Big Soul, as in the Upanashadic idea that Atman
equals Brahman. Sometimes the human soul is seen as a separate entity
created by God with an act of will. There are other variations
on this theme. In any case, the idea of a God as First Principle or
Creator would seem to be required once we accept the notion of an
essential and eternal soul. The question of where these souls come from
can only be answered by tracing them back to a first cause. The inquiry
must end in an act of creation by a special ontologically privileged
great-soul.

The opposite extreme view is annihilationism, which is a nearly literal
translation of ucchedavada (the "cutting-off" view). This, in its simplest
formulation, is the view that beings are "cut off" at death and utterly
cease to exist. In the Buddha's time this was represented by various
philosophies that either postulated the existence of a finite
"life-principle" or took a hard-materialist line that denied any separate
reality apart from the body.

In western philosophy, this view was developed by
some of the stoics and has never completely died out. Today, in the form
of so-called rationalism or philosophical materialism it is becoming
established as the dominant world-view of the educated classes. On the
metaphysical level, it is represented by what is called "physicalism, "
the argument that all mental functions are in the last analysis dependent
on physical processes. As a corollary, this would mean that such processes
are also explicable in purely physical terms, i.e.
as specific sequences of firing neurons.

Such a view of course presupposes atheism; there is neither room nor need
for a God in such a philosophy. Likewise, it rejects completely any idea
of a life after death, and tends to be extremely skeptical about what are
called paranormal phenomena like telepathy or precognition.

It can be seen that one of the principle differences between these two
philosophic tendencies is on the question of the "Great Matter" of life
and death. One believes in a separate soul that continues forever, the
other believes only in physical reality and denies any kind of post-mortem
existence. They would seem to be completely irreconcilable polar
opposites, and in most respects they are. However, from the point-of-view
of Buddhism they both share one underlying false assumption.

Before we get to that, it is necessary to explain
something of the Buddhist view. The Buddhists have made the claim that
they are the Middle Path between both of these erroneous extremes and have
presented the Master's doctrine of the Dependent Origination as a
middle-way cutting across the thickets of views. The Dependent Origination
is a complex study, as it has many aspects in different contexts.
Nevertheless, the core idea is simple, but subtle and profound. The
general principle of Dependent Origination is that things arise from
causes and not otherwise. "This arising, that must be.
This ceasing, that must cease."

We'll have much more to say about this axiom of Buddhism, but first let
us make a note that both of the extreme views, as opposite in most
respects as day and night, share this salient characteristic; they
ultimately deny cause-and-effect and fall back on arbitrariness. In the
eternalist view the chain of cause-and-effect is explicitly traced back to
a First Cause, a Primum Mobile, which is in most formulations some version
of a Creator-God who creates by an act of arbitrary will. The final answer
to why the universe is the way it is and not otherwise is that God did it
that way.

The materialist or annihilationist view also falls
back on an arbitrary principle, as it ultimately rests on randomness.
Things are this way just because that is the way things are. The
ultimately arbitrary nature of this view is seen in many instances. In the
Big Bang model of the universe, for instance, there is an outstanding
problem of "broken symmetry." The universe did not continue to expand into
a universally diffuse soup of particles as would be expected by a strict
application of cause-and-effect, instead the initial symmetry was somehow
randomly (arbitrarily) broken and matter "clumped" into galaxies,
stars and planets.

As an historical aside, western science has always
had an uncomfortable relationship with this arbitrary principle. The
entire intellectual basis of science is predicated on seeking and
explaining the laws of cause-and-effect. Before the middle of the
nineteenth century, most scientists were comfortable with falling back on
divine creation as the ultimate arbitrary first cause. Newton, for
example, was very much a creationist and even maintained that God would
intervene from time to time to keep the planets in their orbits. (Which we
now know are actually chaotic - i.e. extremely complex non-repeating
patterns, neither random nor regular)

It was only with the advent of quantum mechanics that creationism was
explicitly replaced with randomness. In fact, some thinkers today use
quantum mechanics to justify the idea that the universe is inherently
random. This is actually a misunderstanding. For instance, Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle maintains that certain fundamental quantities are
inherently unpredictable, which is not at all to say that they arise
without cause-and-condition. Most of the metaphysical arguments from
Quantum Mechanics confuse the laws of quantum physics with their various
interpretations. The former are mathematical rigorous and experimentally
verifiable, while the later are philosophical attempts to explain how the
universe might work according to those laws. We will have a little more to
say about Quantum Mechanics later, in relation to the topic of the nature
of Mind.

To recap the argument so far, we can divide the world of metaphysical
thought into that camp which believes that sentient beings are possessed
of an immortal soul created by the arbitrary will of a God and those who
believe sentient beings are nothing more than a complex arrangement of
molecules arisen in the last analysis by pure chance. In the middle of
these extremes, we have the third camp, the Buddhists who believe that
beings arise according to laws of cause-and-effect and deny that there is
any arbitrary or random aspect whatsoever.

The Buddhist writer and translator, Maurice Walshe, once came up with a
very evocative metaphor for this situation. He said that the Buddhist
Middle-Way is like an island in the middle of a round lake. There is an
optical illusion such that from either shore, the island always appears
closer to the further shore. Likewise, to the eternalist, Buddhism must
always seem hopelessly nihilistic in its denial of Soul and God. This is
in fact the argument presented by the official Vatican theologians against
Buddhism. On the other hand, a modern "scientifically" minded atheist
looks at Buddhism as being hopelessly mystical with it's talk of karma,
rebirth, other realms and so on. To him, the island appears just a short
passage from the eternalist shore.

Before proceeding to an attempt to develop the
implications of the Buddhist idea of Dependent Origination, we should tie
up one loose end. The alert reader may have noticed that I mentioned a
third minor category of false view which does not fit neatly into the two
broader camps. I was referring to the so-called "eel-wriggler's" view
(literal translation.) This is the view of the person so caught up in the
hindrance of skeptical doubt that they are unable to take a position
anywhere on either shore or on the island but end up flopping about in the
lake like eels. Nowadays this position attempts to gain some
respectability by calling itself "agnostic. The Buddha was quite
dismissive of this position in the Brahmajala Sutta.
He characterized them as saying "I don't say this, I don't say that and I
don't say the other thing," and put their position down to either
stupidity or cowardice.

More could be said on this topic, which is not unimportant, but to return
to our main theme - having discussed the two polar false views, we must
now turn to the Buddhist Middle position.

We have seen that the primary metaphysical axiom of Buddhism is that
things arise according to causes and conditions and not otherwise. I do
not know if it is possible to establish this point with absolute
philosophical rigour or not. It does seem to me to be intuitively true and
I do not know of any unimpeachable counter-examples. (I have already said
that so-called Quantum randomness does not qualify since that is not a
statement of fact but just one possible interpretation of the data. Again,
I would like to defer this point until we get to the topic of Mind.)

It is a trivial observation to say that the universe is mostly lawful,
that it is subject to cause-and-effect. This is why science is possible at
all. Two atoms of hydrogen joined to one atom of oxygen always make water
and never gold or silicon. However, the Buddhist principle goes much
further than this and makes the strong claim that everything arises
according to causes. There is no random arising, nor random cessation.

Consider a universe where this were not so. There would be a fundamental
underlying meaninglessness and on the human level, a final hopelessness.
Since Buddhism is, as I have said, a practical philosophy, and also a
hopeful one it cannot take it's basis on such a view of the universe. We
need to start our inquiry somewhere, and this point needs to be taken as
axiomatic for the rest of my argument to make sense. If you cannot follow
me this far, the rest of what I have to say will not be convincing.

Another way of saying this is to restate the First Noble Truth and its
associated task. The Buddha said this existence is marked with suffering
(dukkha) and that we should, and can, understand it. He would not have
given us the charge to understand it (it being in the last analysis all
conditioned reality) if it were not understandable, if he had himself not
understood it. Moreover, it could not be understood if it were random or
arbitrary. So again, the whole teaching turns on this single point.

Now it is necessary to make another longish digression, to establish what
Buddhism says about the nature of Mind, before we can apply this axiomatic
rule of causation.

The nature of Mind is of course a central concern of
Buddhism. Many of the texts and traditions can seem very mystical or
cryptic, but if we turn to a very early attempt at intellectual rigour, the Abhidhamma, we can get some clear principles
established to work with. Abhidhamma is a collection of texts from a very
early phase of Buddhist thought. Traditionally the core passages, the
matika, are attributed to the Buddha himself. Modern scholarship casts
doubt on this tradition, but no one disputes that the Abhidhamma is very
ancient. In structure and method they are very precise and rigorous texts
which classify the elements of body and mind and their relationships.

The Abhidhamma recognizes four basic categories of reality: Rupa, Citta,
Cetasika and Nibbana. That is, in English, body or physical matter, mind
per se or consciousness, con-comitant mental factors arising with
consciousness like thought or memory etc. and finally sui generis, Nibbana
(nirvana) the unconditioned, a special class outside the rest.

Leaving the last aside for now, it is important to understand that each
of the other three can be considered as ontologically primitive
categories. That is to say, each has it is own irreducible reality.
Consciousness for example can be explained neither in terms of matter nor
vice-versa. The elements of each class may act upon each other in some
circumstances. If it is cold in the room where I am sitting, the physical
reality may be one causal factor in my mental feeling of distress.
Nevertheless, for that feeling to exist at all cannot be explained solely
in physical terms.

This position may require some justification. These days one of the
dominant paradigms is the computational model of mind. This maintains that
mind is a secondary phenomenon derived from purely physical processes in
the brain. This model has strong appeal because as a culture we are so
fascinated by our own creation, the electronic computer, and the way it
can appear to mimic many mental functions.

Thick books have been written on both sides of this
debate, which shows no sign of going away.
Personally, I believe that physicalism can be refuted by a few moments of
honest introspection. Consider the simple fact of "knowing. Not the
process of knowing any-thing in particular, but the raw fact of just
knowing in and of itself. All our perceptions and imaginations can be
analyzed into process of sense organ, nerves and neurons but they all end
up at this irreducible pristine simplicity. There is something at the end
of the chain that "just knows." This immediate knowing, consciousness per
se, is so simple, immediate and uncompounded that it cannot be explained
in terms of any algorithm (step by step process.)

This last is of critical importance. If
consciousness were a result of physical processes, we should be able (at
least in theory) to explicate it step-by-step. It would need to be
algorithmic. This is especially and obviously true for any computational
model of mind. Any computational process can, in theory, be reduced to a
series of simple and linear programming commands (the concept of the Turing
machine.) There is simply no way to program something that is in
itself immediate and perfectly simple. Consciousness does not make sense
unless it is considered sui generis.

This way of understanding mind should not be confused with what western
philosophy calls "substance dualism" or the "ghost in the machine." That
is the eternalist soul view all dressed up for polite company. It is also,
paradoxically, a sort of materialism. It assumes that there must be some
"stuff" to comprise mind. Buddhism emphatically denies this. Mind is void.

We are trapped here by our own linguistic limitations. We are forced to
use nouns like "mind" and "consciousness" to talk about this at all.
However, nouns subtly imply some thing. Mind is not a thing at all. It
would be better to use verbs like "knowing" exclusively if that did not
trip us up in hopeless circumlocutions. Better to use the conventions of
speech, but not to be fooled thereby.

So, mind, in the Buddhist understanding, is a separate irreducible class
separate from body (and from mental concomitants but we need not digress
that far from the main line of argument.) It is however, causally arisen
and conditioned. In other words, subject to cause-and-effect like
everything else. It is also, most of the time, intimately bound up with a
physical body, which can act as one of the causal factors. Fill the
bloodstream with alcohol and the conscious mind is dulled and bewildered
because its physical correlate is not functioning normally. Likewise, mind
can be a causal factor for body, and every time I move my limbs I
demonstrate this.

One of the principal themes of Abhidhamma is an analysis of how specific
mind-moments succeed in each in a causal chain. This is an application of
the Buddhist law of impermanence, or the momentary nature of reality. Each
moment consciousness arises to take an object. The process then repeats
again and again ad infinitum in very specific patterns, which constitute
the processes of perception and thought.

Now, each individual mind-moment of consciousness has a network of
causes. It does not arise randomly. These can include the physical
condition of the body, external sense data or internal mental
concomitants. It always includes as a necessary cause the previous moment
of consciousness. For example, I am watching an LCD screen as I type this.
I may watch the screen for many subsequent moments, the previous moments
and their objects conditioning the next arising consciousness to alight on
the same or an adjacent object.

Mind then is momentary, unitary, void and subject to causes and
conditions. A moment of consciousness, like everything else, cannot arise
without causes, just randomly. This would violate the axiomatic rule of
dependent arising. It would also constitute a case of creation ex nihilo,
which is an extreme example of the arbitrary principle we have rejected.

This brings us to the very important topic of rebirth. It is sometimes
seen as a contradiction that Buddhism teaches void nature (no-self) and
yet maintains rebirth as a reality. If you have followed my argument so
far, the next step is to establish that rebirth is a necessary consequence
of the principle of causality. This is because the first moment of
consciousness arising in a being in the womb also cannot be a creation ex
nihilo. It must arise from prior causes, which must include a previous
moment of consciousness.

The seeming paradox that there is rebirth but nothing is reborn arises
from a misconception about this very life. Nothing in fact continues from
moment to moment in the course of an ordinary day. It is just a causally
connected series of mind-moments arising to various objects. What occurs
at death is different only in that the physical base, the body, is no
longer functional so the mind seeking an object is forced to re-arise
elsewhere, with a new form as determined by its karma.

The first station listed (for purposes of discussion only, the process is
cyclic and there is no "first cause" in Buddhism) is ignorance. Because
the mind is ignorant of higher reality, it takes action in the world,
which is karmic formation, the second stage.

It is worthwhile at this point to say something about karma. ("Kamma" in
Pali) Karma in Buddhism means "volitional action." It is best understood
at the level of mind-moments. Each moment the unenlightened mind makes
choices, volitional determinations, which subtly upset the balance of the
universe. This balance must be righted, so the mind at some later time
experiences sense-impressions from the world according to its karma.

Put crudely, if one does good deeds one receives happy results and if one
does bad deeds one receives unhappy results. This is the law of karma
expressed on a macro level. It is just this formulation that is commonly
understood when most people talk about karma. If we stop there, it invites
the criticism from skeptics that no mechanism is specified and the whole
thing seems a hopelessly mystical basis for ethics.

However, if we analyze what is happening at the micro-level of
mind-moments then karma makes sense as a close analogue to the
conservation laws in the physical realm. The law of conservation of
momentum, for instance, determines that momentum is always conserved and
if it is effected in one part of a closed system, another part will
compensate. This is seen in the behaviour of billiard balls for instance.
If one ball strikes two others, each travels away with one-half of the
momentum of the initial ball. The universe has a strong disposition to
seek balance, every negative always finds a compensating positive.

We have already seen that Mind must be considered as a separate category,
separate from but inter-reactive with body. If that is true, then there is
no reason why it should not be subject to laws analogous to the physical,
but within it's own realm. This is karma. It plays out as real results in
the physical world because the realms of mind and matter do inter-react.

This action of resultant karma taking the form of physical phenomena is
also difficult for skeptics to accept. However, to assume that matter is
always primary is nothing but an unfounded assumption. From a purely
experiential perspective, it is in fact absurd. Mind is in actuality the
only thing we can ever know directly, everything else, including our own
bodies, is mediated through the sense organs and the perception and
consciousness factors of the mind. To assume that that which is only
indirectly known must be primary to that which is immediately known is a
strange prejudice indeed.

To get back to our summary of how rebirth works according to dependent
origination: with these karmic formations as a conditioning factor,
consciousness arises. In the special case of rebirth-linking, it arises in
the womb or other vessel (such as an egg in the case of some lower
animals) appropriate to it. This happens as a strict logical necessity
given the nature of mind and karma outlined above. The mind has assumed a
karmic debt and this must be fulfilled or the iron law of cause-and-effect
is violated. The universe must continue to seek to balance itself.

Karma is not the only conditioning factor. The force of desire, which is
always present in the unenlightened mind, is another. This is the basis of
the Second Noble Truth, that desire is the cause of "this whole mass of
suffering. It is also explained more fully in the later stations of the
dependent origination. (Contact to feeling to craving to clinging to
becoming to birth)

This force of desire can be directly observed in the mind during insight
(Vipassana) meditation. It can be seen for oneself that at each moment the
mind seeks an object. There is an inherent greediness for objects in the
unenlightened mind. This can be said to be the primal addiction. At death,
the mind still seeks an object, but to fulfill this desire the old vehicle
is no longer useful so it must arise elsewhere.

In brief, driven by karma and desire the mind seeks a new form. The newly
arisen consciousness in a womb thus has antecedents. It did not, indeed
could not, arise without such prior causal factors. To believe that each
birth is a newly created consciousness is only possible if we introduce
arbitrary factors like a creator God.

I promised earlier to return to the question of the
supposed randomness of Quantum Mechanics. The strongest case for this
would seem to be in the description of reality as "probability functions."
For example, we cannot predict exactly the location of an electron, only
describe mathematically its probability sphere. When an observation is
made, however, the electron does have a specific location, somewhere in
the sphere according to its probabilities.

To make a grossly simplified example, say the electron could be at
location A or location B with 50% probability for each. When we make an
observation, it "collapses" to either A or B and this seems to be utterly
random.

However, this leaves out the factor of Mind as a separate causal entity
in the universe. The observation is in fact the application of Mind into
the system and it is this insertion that forces the electron to have a
definite location ("to make up it's mind!")

This contribution of mind to the equation has
severely disturbed many scientists, most of whom are physicalists. To
avoid allowing for what seems to be the simplest explanation, they have
been forced either to resort to the arbitrary application of blind chance
or to seek explanations that are even more fanciful. Most scientists have
however shared an aversion to the idea of randomness.
The best-known attempt to avoid allowing Mind a causative role and at the
same time preserving causality has been the "Many Worlds" hypothesis. This
says that the electron appears at both A and B in separate universes! This
hypothesis has been great for spawning science-fiction yarns but is
mind-bogglingly inelegant compared to just allowing
Mind its rightful place.

It could be noted in passing that this role of the observer (Mind) in
collapsing the probabilities could also be the underlying mechanism for
karma unfolding in the world. It might be that the universe exists as a
wealth of variously probable potentials, and that these only actualize
when mind alights on one or the other according to its desire and its
karma.

Some other outstanding problems in science might possibly be solved if
Mind is accepted as a separate causal reality. The initial broken
symmetry, mentioned above, might be the effect of the cumulative karma of
beings from a previous universe.

To get somewhat speculative, I think Mind might have a very deep
structural role in the entire unfolding of form in the world. Mind, driven
by desire, is always seeking objects and physical forms to access those
objects from. It might have a powerful creative role in manifesting the
whole physical reality.

The creationists have mounted a concerted effort to find flaws in the
dominant paradigm of evolution. While much of what they produce is
nonsensical, they do raise some strong issues. Existing evolutionary
theory maintains that organisms evolve by small random mutations, which
are then selected for by competition for survival. This works very well
for things like the giraffe's neck. The giraffe with the longer neck will
find more leaves and have a better chance to leave offspring. However, it
does not explain very well how complex organs like the eye could arise in
the first place. Each inter-connected part of the eye needs to be adapted
exactly to every other part. A random mutation could only improve vision
if all connected parts (rod, optic nerve, lens etc. etc.) mutated
together, in harmony.

Random mutation does not do it as a
complete explanation. However, where the creationists miss the boat
is that the fossil record does clearly indicate that organisms evolve over
time. Evolution is an established fact, but the accepted mechanism is not
sufficient in all details. Here again, a positive role for Mind as an
underlying creative force could be another causal factor contributing to a
complete explanation.

This might work through the unfolding of embryonic form. This is another
huge gap in scientific understanding. The maverick biologist Rupert
Sheldrake points this out brilliantly in his "New Science of Life" and in
other books. We now know quite a lot about DNA and it is functioning, but
as Sheldrake points out, the only DNA mechanism demonstrated by scientists
is protein synthesis. DNA appears to be a recipe book for making proteins.
No coding has ever been found to explain how these proteins combine to
make more complex structures like cells or organs in the developing
embryo. In fact, the case has been made stronger since Sheldrake first
wrote by the discovery that the majority of DNA sequences are pure "junk,
the equivalent of "yada yada" repeated hundreds of times. There simply
isn't room in the DNA to specify a complete blueprint for a complex
organism!

Sheldrake proposes something called "Morphogenetic Fields" as the
repositories of this information. These fields are non-local, i.e. not
located in space, they change with time in feedback loops with the
physical forms and they determine the unfolding of form in the embryo.
This sounds a lot like Mind, which is also non-physical so not locatable
in space, can interact with material form and is constantly changing.

These examples should suffice to show that a metaphysics that accords
Minds a separate category has the potential to be a more powerful
explanatory model than a metaphysics that seeks to reduce everything to
matter. It does so, what is more, while avoiding the arbitrariness of a
"First Cause" or of reliance on blind chance, which is no explanation
whatsoever. Far from being mystical, it is grounded on observable reality.
Vipassana (insight meditation) is in fact experimental spiritual science.

This essay would not be complete without briefly referring to the fourth
category specified in Abhidhamma, the Nibbana element. This is the summum
bonum of Buddhism of course, and it is said to be the Unconditioned
element. It is the one factor in the system that is outside the law of
causality. Nevertheless, even here there is a strong consistency. This
element it should be noted is neither cause nor effect. It is completely
other than this reality. This means that it is not in any way an arbitrary
factor inserted into the system to close explanatory gaps. This is in
contrast to the God of the Christian theologians, which is said to be a
"causeless cause."

The reality of the Unconditioned is what makes Buddhism more than a
secular philosophy. The other three categories deal with First Noble
Truth, this whole mass of suffering. They can be known. Taken by
themselves, they can serve as an explanatory framework for this world we
experience, including the primary fact that we do experience it. However,
Nibbana gives us the potential of accessing that which is not this, it is
Third Noble Truth, the end of this whole mass of suffering.

FOOTNOTES

sassatavada and ucchedavada - See
for example the Vissuddhimagga, ch. XIX which details the dependent
origination and frequently compares it to the extreme views. See also the
Samyutta Nikaya v. 1, II 15 (p.544 in Bhikkhu Bodhi's English
translation.) [BACK]

jiva or life principle -
The "atman" is the personal principle in the Upanishads. In the higher
teachings, it is equated with Brahma, the world-soul. This is the doctrine
of "One Mind." The "jiva" is the immortal life-principle as understood in
Jainism, amongst other schools. [BACK]

variations on this theme -
There are some sects of Christianity, for instance, that do not postulate
a separate soul but believe that the body is resurrected at the end-times
and becomes immortal. This does not change the basic eternalist bias of
the religion of course. [BACK]

physical terms - There
is an extensive literature discussing the so-called mind-body problem. For
the physicalist position see the works of Dawkins, Dennet and Hofstadter,
among others. For a sustained critique of this view from a Mahayana
Buddhist perspective, see the Buddhism vs. Materialism web-site at http://home.btclick.com/scimah
[BACK]

...that must cease -
The full statement is "When this exists, that comes to be. With the
arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come
to be. With the cessation of this, that ceases." Samyutta II - 21 (page
552 of vol. 1 in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation.) [BACK]

without a map -
Readers wanting a brilliant literary critique of agnosticism should pick
up the delightful "Life of Pi" by Yann Martel. [BACK]

the Abhidhamma - The
best introduction to the field of Abhidhamma is "A Comprehensive Manual of
Abhidhamma" ed. Bhikkhu Bodhi [BACK]

no sign of going away. -
For those so inclined, one of the most cogent arguments for the
physicalist position is Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained". For a
contrary view, see David J. Chalmers "Facing up to the Problem of
Consciousness" originally pub. in the Journal of Consciousness Studies,
1995 and available online at a
http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html
[BACK]

the Turing machine -
For a detailed look at this line of argument see Roger Penrose's "The
Emperor's New Mind." This book also has one of the best explanations of
relativity and quantum theory accessible to the lay man.
[BACK]

...suffering comes to be - There
is a vast and sometimes controversial literature on the Dependent
Origination. The classic expression of the orthodox Theravada view is
found in the Vissudhimagga (Path of Purification) chapter XVII. A good
modern summary is P.A. Payutto's "Dependent Origination."
[BACK]

...Mind its rightful place - It is impossible to imagine a more egregious violation of Occam's
Razor. "A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not
be multiplied needlessly." [BACK]

a complete explanation -
There is no space here to develop this line of inquiry properly. It should
be noted that the campaign of the Creationists has mostly served to muddy
the waters. Other, non-religious, writers have pointed out serious
problems in the dominant paradigm. Interested readers would do well to
begin with "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton.
[BACK]